Oh please, don't just repeat the propaganda. None of those will have any measurable impact on climate change, and besides, those aren't cuts in a relative sense, since the existing regulations intended to cut those gases a lot more, and the bush administration screwed back the cuts.
The US government has no plans to cut back greenhouse gas production to any measurable degree (they raised the existing CO2 limits beyond what the predictions for the industry production of it were), and this because the energy industry makes too much profit from the existing energy waste and inefficient energy production. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
Having said that, the EU is all talk as well. They may have ratified kyoto, but they're way off target. They're still putting out a lot more greenhouse gases than they're allowed to, and have no credible plans to hit the target.
That economic line is BS as well. Those cost figures that were cited over and over for the US were hyperinflated, because they assumed america would be buying its permissions to pollute instead of cleaning up industry. If you look at the cost of reducing greenhouse gas production in america through decreased energy use and cleaner energy production, it is actually very palatable (some studies show negative cost), because america is the most energy-wasteful nation in the world. Ofcourse it's politically unpopular to do something like that because it would mean decreased profits for the energy industry, but hey.
There was a story here previously about the journalistic quality of blogs on the Internet and how they couldn't touch real journalism. I now understand what that's all about.
Bah, real journalism. Real journalists don't have any special kind of knowledge or ability to be factually accurate. They just have more oversight. But even so, imho the editorial oversight in the mainstream press is severely lacking as well because of the slow death of independent investigative journalism. Mainstream press stories get debunked all the time. As long as there is only one independent source for a story, you have to take it with a huge grain of salt, regardless of who that source is. And with most of the mainstream press being primarily a pipe for single-source organizations like the AP, it's kind of inevitable they report a lot of falsehoods as well.
Besides, despite the lack of factual veracity of that trip, it reminded people there is such a thing as chernobyl, and the region around it. That just because something is no longer in the news it's not still influencing people's lives. That's not a bad thing.
The only problem is that they hope to get it down to a footprint of 64 MB, which is more than fifteen times Opera's footprint. So unless Opera for mobiles starts adding some serious bloat, it'll still be smaller and faster than Minimo.
I call BS. A full-featured browser can only be so small. Either mobile opera cuts useful features for footprint, or your figures are bogus.
I don't think it is GPL, actually. It's a separate Mozilla license thing. So... You might want to rethink that stance of yours.
It's licensed under a MPL/GPL/LGPL trilicense, meaning you can pick your license. If you choose to treat it as GPL, you can.
There's room in the "small embedded" market, such as cell-phones and PDAs, and some vendors that bundle software may prefer a commercial vendor with paid support, especially for things like home-entertainment boxes.
Opera is definitely the only browser currently acceptable for general browsing use on cellphones and pda's. However, with mozilla's efforts to make mobile and embedded editions, opera could soon see competition there too.
It's kind of sad if opera were to go, but if there is only room enough on the market for either firefox or opera, I'll pick firefox any day of the week. Not for its features, but for how it is developed. I like mozilla.org's structure, as a non-profit spreading gpl'd code, because it guarantees that nobody's going to pull the rug out from under firefox, like what happened with IE or netscape.
So that means everything inside that (which is the whole page) should be centered on the screen and it is clearly not. It's obviously centering it using the suggested width and not the actual width that it decides to draw it as. I really don't want to dig into the header table width part. I don't care that much.
Look again. You can see it very clearly by walking the dom tree in firefox's dom inspector (I love dom inspector). The div with id shell contains the table (admittedly non-obvious from looking at the html source). The table isn't centered correctly because it is relative to the containing div (the one with id shell), not to the div that has the align=center property. The container div is the one that is centered, the table should inherit the centering, being a descendant of it, but this centering is irrelevant because it overflows and overflow behavior in all browsers is to the right and bottom.
The irony is that the table is actually centered correctly. It is rendered in the middle of the page and the container div, where it belongs. However, since it overflows the boundaries of the container div, and all browsers overflow to the right and bottom, its content ends up being off center.
But you're right, this is way too much time to spend on one silly little page. I was just annoyed the blame was put at firefox's feet, while this clearly is a page that only renders as intended in IE by accident, not by intention.
However, it's being blamed on firefox here, and it is not firefox's fault if it renders a site as the code tells it to. It's the web developer's fault. The approach the mozilla developers have taken is to allow "tech evangelism" bugs in the bugzilla bug database, where you report a broken site, and they then contact the site to fix their code so it works correctly. That effort has made the web a LOT more standards compliant, and all alternative browsers are reaping the benefit of it, not just mozilla.
And here's a layout problem with firefox. Notice that the top part of the table doesn't stretch all the way to the right and that the table isn't centered: http://www.win-the-lotto.com/u/04/316/0 2/ff2.jpg
And here's the same page in IE and it all looks good: http://www.win-the-lotto.com/u/04/316/02/ie 2.jpg
I would say that site is rendering correctly in firefox, and just plain wrong in IE. I must first place a disclaimer that I am not a professional web developer, nor am I a member of the W3C, so I might be wrong about what I'm going to say, but I highly doubt it.
What happens is they have a centered container div with id shell with an explicit width of 762 pixels (that's what centers the content), and they embed all the content in there, including a table with two cells with explicit width, one 170, the other 618. That second cell in turn contains an image that is 800 pixels wide, but since table width is just a suggestion (according to the spec) the table may be resized to fit the contents, and both firefox and IE do this. So the table gets an explicit width of at least 970 pixels, but it is inside a container that is explicitly 762 pixels wide. You can't just resize one or the other, because how do you decide which? The overflow property comes to the rescue, it decides what to do in this situation. It isn't given by the css on the site, but it has a default value of visible, meaning "content is not clipped, i.e., it may be rendered outside the block box". So, the right thing to do is to make the table render outside the boundaries of the container. Firefox does this, pushing the table's right edge outside the centered container, making it appear wider than the rest of the content and off-center. IE however, chooses a different approach. It resizes the container, in violation of the explicit width, to match the contained table, then it resizes all the content inside to match the width of the new container, making everything as wide as the table. That's wrong.
So, this is a broken layout that exploits a bug in IE to render correctly. For firefox to render this like IE would require violating the standards. Without any standards except "what IE does", MS owns the web, because it, and it alone, can dictate what the IE rendering engine does. Do you really want that? Somehow I doubt it.
I'm all for following the HTML standard strictly, but the problem is that a large part of the web isn't doing that and if FireFox wants to be better than IE, it needs to at least render the pages the way they were intended.
A lot of people speed. Are you saying we should raise the speed limit to accomodate them?
Or maybe you are suggesting java would be a great language, if only it let you forget a semi-colon every once in a while, because let's face it, you'd get less compilation errors that way.
There is no such thing as "as intended" when you don't use the standards. The firefox devs would need to reimplement IE, bugs included, and that makes no sense, since why would you make a competing browser engine if you intend it to be an exact clone of IE?
Besides, you're overestimating the importance of sites that break. Maybe you weren't around in the browser wars. It was worse then. You had to constantly switch browsers or suffer a large segment of the web not working correctly. In the end, MS built a better product, and people adapted their sites to it. Firefox can do the same thing now, and in fact, it will.
I've done literally thousands of presentations in PPT (some massive) without a single glitch ever (of course there have been numerious errors on slides, but that was my fault).
I would say you're trolling. I've never met a real person who had that good of an experience with ms office. I could be proven wrong anecdotally, but until I see someone who isn't posting anonymously who has had that good of an ms office experience I'm going to assume everyone loses files to office corruption every once in a while. I know I have.
If you had actually bought your copy of Windows instead of pirating it you would know the support address very well, my dear. Too well for your taste, I guess;-)
See, there's the problem, if they only pay attention to those who pay for support, then they're ignoring the needs of the home user market. Firefox is specifically targetting those who don't pay for support beyond what is included with the product (which in windows' case is essentially nothing).
Really, did we ever see evidence that AOL had any intention of using Netscape or Winamp for anything, or was it just to kill the projects?
Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence. I see no evidence AOL ever made any product that was truly good. Their corporate culture seems to discourage excellence. It's why nobody likes them, and why anything they try to "assimilate" ends up dead within a few years.
Re:If you are so smart...
on
Cube Farm
·
· Score: 1
I agree that if you can't learn honestly without supervision, you're better off in a formal environment. That's why I said the bit about having things spoonfed.
Still, you shouldn't overvalue formal education either. Having someone review your work is useful, but not mandatory. And if you really have questions, most fields of study have forums you can ask them in for free.
Which is exactly why I am declaring the War on Sharks. This world cannot tolerate one more senseless death to shark attack. We cannot sit back and wait for the sharks to attack us.
Don't forget the war on lightning. Lightning killed 3 times as many americans as international terrorism last year.
Re:If you are so smart...
on
Cube Farm
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I would love to be artificial intelligence, for example. MIT would be a great place to study this... my school doesn't have anything decent for it. As I mentioned in another post, my AI class (the only one I could find that they offered) consisted of meaningless crap.
If you want to learn about anything, and you're smart enough to comprehend things without having them spoonfed, you're better off seeing what kind of books rank highest on that topic on amazon, and buying them. Get a good introductory AI book, then use the knowledge gleaned from that to decide which direction you want to go in. I picked up computational linguistics that way.
Schools are not meant to educate you, they are meant to give you credibility and reliability quality indicators in society, possible limited to certain knowledge sets (also known as degrees). The education is just a way for the school to keep up the reputation that the quality labels they stamp on you are sufficient.
Nvu is for those who explicitly don't want to edit the html source. You're just not the target market. I like it. If I need to do a serious webdesign jobs, I'll use a regular text editor, but for a quick and dirty webpage outlining something I need to have outlined, nvu is excellent.
How would you know why people love tabs for daily browsing if you haven't used it for such activities?
I used to have the exact same opinion about tabbed browsing as you. I didn't install the tabbed browsing extensions when they became available for mozilla (been using it as daily browser since M18) when they first came out, because I thought it was nifty but basically pointless. I was wrong. I know that now. Try it for a week, tune it to work the way you want it to. See if you still think it is pointless.
I can attest that I personally was in the never more than three windows open crowd before, but now I'm in the sometimes up to 20 tabs open crowd. It's so convenient to just see something on a site that interests you, middle-click it, and then when you're done reading the already opened sites see that site popup as a reminder you intended to read it.
I haven't noticed anything amiss with/. since the.9.x series. Presently surfing with 1.0 final and feeling no pain.
It is very timing sensitive. It depends on the combination of your computer hardware, your about:config settings, and your network connection's characteristics.
I guess you got lucky. I see it sporadically, maybe one in 30 slashdot pageloads, so I can just click reload when it happens and be done with it.
XUL only works in mozilla. HTML/Javascript will work in any browser (to varying degrees). As another poster said, lockin is bad, regardless of who it is you are being locked in to.
What lock-in? Mozilla is GPL'd, nobody can ever take it away from you. Whereas it is not possible to write javascript/dhtml apps on the level of complexity of what xul allows that work in more than one browser, and let's face it, the only reason not to use xul would be if that one browser was IE, thereby actually locking you in.
Microsoft may have won the browser war against netscape, but netscape lost it. Had netscape not put out such crappy products in the 4.x timeframe, they wouldn't have dropped below the 20 percent marketshare treshold, and people would have designed sites to work in both.
For microsoft to win the search engine war, google would have to lose it, and that's not very likely.
I believe this was done for consistency with microsoft's software in windows. The logical place is indeed under edit, but usability has little to do with logic. If most windows users expect it under tools, under tools it must go.
That debunking doesn't satisfy me. They claim that the states without electronic voting machines got more of a boost than the states with, which is true, but not necessarily relevant. The fraud would happen on the tally machines, which are used basically everywhere, even in states with paper ballot voting. Doing a recount of the paper ballots ofcourse would reveal errors in the tallies, but such a recount would have to happen first, and if it is completed after the inauguration, it would be purely academic.
Dude, I agree with you that abortion should be legal, but that is one hell of a contrived argument. It would be much more simple under that argument to make the rapist pay reparations, and/or adopt the child, than to terminate the pregnancy.
I noticed you didn't include Kennedy in your diatribe, although he to implemented the same policy. Which worked then, just as it work all the other times it has been implemented.
It's simple: cutting taxes always stimulates the economy, but some tax cuts stimulate more than others. It would have been a bigger boost to the economy to just hand out the entire tax cut in cash to random people in the street.
So, yes, trickle-down economics always "works" in the sense that it boosts the economy, but it is always a dumb thing to do because you're spending more on that boost than you need to. To boost the economy you need to boost spending, and the basic theory behind reaganomics is that by giving a tax cut to the rich they redistribute that extra income to their employees, who then spend it. Everyone knows if you give the rich a tax cut, they don't give it all away (they might give a percentage of it away), so it is much more effective to give the tax cut to the people who spend directly than conceiving of these kooky indirect schemes that have a large degree of waste of your tax cut's effects.
I supposed you are also against a flat tax rate as well. o just what in your opinion should the rate be on the top bracket? And just where should that top bracket start?
What should the top rate be? How much food should a person eat? It's the same thing. It depends on how much energy you're expending, as a government, or as a person. If you want to lower the tax rate, cut spending. Lowering the tax rate by going into a structural deficit is ALWAYS bad, economic theory is extremely clear on that, and only total whackjob economists try to argue with it. Ofcourse, the annoying thing (and the reason a lot of governments still do it), is that lowering the tax rate by going into a countercyclical deficit is good, and so sometimes you have to run up a deficit for the good of your economy.
A flat tax rate could work, but only if you tax all income under that rate. What the bush administration did with the tax cut (and the reason it is so skewed towards the rich), is tax income from capital (dividends, capital gains) a lot less than income from other sources, like labor, and then give the middle class a small tax cut for misdirection purposes. As a result, introducing a flat tax rate in personal income wouldn't affect a lot of the rich's income, with tax rates on capital still extremely low (below 15 percent), thereby reducing their total tax burden as a percentage of their total income to entirely regressive levels (as far as that isn't the case already). Unless you convince bush to somehow make the tax code tax all income sources equally, please don't campaign for a flat personal income tax rate, because it would make the tax system even more regressive.
I personally would get rid of brackets, I'd like to see a system that pools all the income together, and then applies a one-liner formula on it to calculate your tax rate. It would be much more simple, and a lot more fair.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh please, don't just repeat the propaganda. None of those will have any measurable impact on climate change, and besides, those aren't cuts in a relative sense, since the existing regulations intended to cut those gases a lot more, and the bush administration screwed back the cuts.
The US government has no plans to cut back greenhouse gas production to any measurable degree (they raised the existing CO2 limits beyond what the predictions for the industry production of it were), and this because the energy industry makes too much profit from the existing energy waste and inefficient energy production. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
Having said that, the EU is all talk as well. They may have ratified kyoto, but they're way off target. They're still putting out a lot more greenhouse gases than they're allowed to, and have no credible plans to hit the target.
That economic line is BS as well. Those cost figures that were cited over and over for the US were hyperinflated, because they assumed america would be buying its permissions to pollute instead of cleaning up industry. If you look at the cost of reducing greenhouse gas production in america through decreased energy use and cleaner energy production, it is actually very palatable (some studies show negative cost), because america is the most energy-wasteful nation in the world. Ofcourse it's politically unpopular to do something like that because it would mean decreased profits for the energy industry, but hey.
There was a story here previously about the journalistic quality of blogs on the Internet and how they couldn't touch real journalism. I now understand what that's all about.
Bah, real journalism. Real journalists don't have any special kind of knowledge or ability to be factually accurate. They just have more oversight. But even so, imho the editorial oversight in the mainstream press is severely lacking as well because of the slow death of independent investigative journalism. Mainstream press stories get debunked all the time. As long as there is only one independent source for a story, you have to take it with a huge grain of salt, regardless of who that source is. And with most of the mainstream press being primarily a pipe for single-source organizations like the AP, it's kind of inevitable they report a lot of falsehoods as well.
Besides, despite the lack of factual veracity of that trip, it reminded people there is such a thing as chernobyl, and the region around it. That just because something is no longer in the news it's not still influencing people's lives. That's not a bad thing.
The only problem is that they hope to get it down to a footprint of 64 MB, which is more than fifteen times Opera's footprint. So unless Opera for mobiles starts adding some serious bloat, it'll still be smaller and faster than Minimo.
I call BS. A full-featured browser can only be so small. Either mobile opera cuts useful features for footprint, or your figures are bogus.
I don't think it is GPL, actually. It's a separate Mozilla license thing. So... You might want to rethink that stance of yours.
It's licensed under a MPL/GPL/LGPL trilicense, meaning you can pick your license. If you choose to treat it as GPL, you can.
There's room in the "small embedded" market, such as cell-phones and PDAs, and some vendors that bundle software may prefer a commercial vendor with paid support, especially for things like home-entertainment boxes.
Opera is definitely the only browser currently acceptable for general browsing use on cellphones and pda's. However, with mozilla's efforts to make mobile and embedded editions, opera could soon see competition there too.
It's kind of sad if opera were to go, but if there is only room enough on the market for either firefox or opera, I'll pick firefox any day of the week. Not for its features, but for how it is developed. I like mozilla.org's structure, as a non-profit spreading gpl'd code, because it guarantees that nobody's going to pull the rug out from under firefox, like what happened with IE or netscape.
So that means everything inside that (which is the whole page) should be centered on the screen and it is clearly not. It's obviously centering it using the suggested width and not the actual width that it decides to draw it as. I really don't want to dig into the header table width part. I don't care that much.
Look again. You can see it very clearly by walking the dom tree in firefox's dom inspector (I love dom inspector). The div with id shell contains the table (admittedly non-obvious from looking at the html source). The table isn't centered correctly because it is relative to the containing div (the one with id shell), not to the div that has the align=center property. The container div is the one that is centered, the table should inherit the centering, being a descendant of it, but this centering is irrelevant because it overflows and overflow behavior in all browsers is to the right and bottom.
The irony is that the table is actually centered correctly. It is rendered in the middle of the page and the container div, where it belongs. However, since it overflows the boundaries of the container div, and all browsers overflow to the right and bottom, its content ends up being off center.
But you're right, this is way too much time to spend on one silly little page. I was just annoyed the blame was put at firefox's feet, while this clearly is a page that only renders as intended in IE by accident, not by intention.
However, it's being blamed on firefox here, and it is not firefox's fault if it renders a site as the code tells it to. It's the web developer's fault. The approach the mozilla developers have taken is to allow "tech evangelism" bugs in the bugzilla bug database, where you report a broken site, and they then contact the site to fix their code so it works correctly. That effort has made the web a LOT more standards compliant, and all alternative browsers are reaping the benefit of it, not just mozilla.
And here's a layout problem with firefox. Notice that the top part of the table doesn't stretch all the way to the right and that the table isn't centered:0 2/ff2.jpg
e 2.jpg
http://www.win-the-lotto.com/u/04/316/
And here's the same page in IE and it all looks good:
http://www.win-the-lotto.com/u/04/316/02/i
I would say that site is rendering correctly in firefox, and just plain wrong in IE. I must first place a disclaimer that I am not a professional web developer, nor am I a member of the W3C, so I might be wrong about what I'm going to say, but I highly doubt it.
What happens is they have a centered container div with id shell with an explicit width of 762 pixels (that's what centers the content), and they embed all the content in there, including a table with two cells with explicit width, one 170, the other 618. That second cell in turn contains an image that is 800 pixels wide, but since table width is just a suggestion (according to the spec) the table may be resized to fit the contents, and both firefox and IE do this. So the table gets an explicit width of at least 970 pixels, but it is inside a container that is explicitly 762 pixels wide. You can't just resize one or the other, because how do you decide which? The overflow property comes to the rescue, it decides what to do in this situation. It isn't given by the css on the site, but it has a default value of visible, meaning "content is not clipped, i.e., it may be rendered outside the block box". So, the right thing to do is to make the table render outside the boundaries of the container. Firefox does this, pushing the table's right edge outside the centered container, making it appear wider than the rest of the content and off-center. IE however, chooses a different approach. It resizes the container, in violation of the explicit width, to match the contained table, then it resizes all the content inside to match the width of the new container, making everything as wide as the table. That's wrong.
So, this is a broken layout that exploits a bug in IE to render correctly. For firefox to render this like IE would require violating the standards. Without any standards except "what IE does", MS owns the web, because it, and it alone, can dictate what the IE rendering engine does. Do you really want that? Somehow I doubt it.
I'm all for following the HTML standard strictly, but the problem is that a large part of the web isn't doing that and if FireFox wants to be better than IE, it needs to at least render the pages the way they were intended.
A lot of people speed. Are you saying we should raise the speed limit to accomodate them?
Or maybe you are suggesting java would be a great language, if only it let you forget a semi-colon every once in a while, because let's face it, you'd get less compilation errors that way.
There is no such thing as "as intended" when you don't use the standards. The firefox devs would need to reimplement IE, bugs included, and that makes no sense, since why would you make a competing browser engine if you intend it to be an exact clone of IE?
Besides, you're overestimating the importance of sites that break. Maybe you weren't around in the browser wars. It was worse then. You had to constantly switch browsers or suffer a large segment of the web not working correctly. In the end, MS built a better product, and people adapted their sites to it. Firefox can do the same thing now, and in fact, it will.
I have no idea where that's from, but the kde buttons in the first photo are pretty much a guarantee it wasn't an MS presentation.
Unless they borrowed the laptop from someone else, in which case the entire point is moot.
I've done literally thousands of presentations in PPT (some massive) without a single glitch ever (of course there have been numerious errors on slides, but that was my fault).
I would say you're trolling. I've never met a real person who had that good of an experience with ms office. I could be proven wrong anecdotally, but until I see someone who isn't posting anonymously who has had that good of an ms office experience I'm going to assume everyone loses files to office corruption every once in a while. I know I have.
If you had actually bought your copy of Windows instead of pirating it you would know the support address very well, my dear. Too well for your taste, I guess ;-)
See, there's the problem, if they only pay attention to those who pay for support, then they're ignoring the needs of the home user market. Firefox is specifically targetting those who don't pay for support beyond what is included with the product (which in windows' case is essentially nothing).
Really, did we ever see evidence that AOL had any intention of using Netscape or Winamp for anything, or was it just to kill the projects?
Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence. I see no evidence AOL ever made any product that was truly good. Their corporate culture seems to discourage excellence. It's why nobody likes them, and why anything they try to "assimilate" ends up dead within a few years.
I agree that if you can't learn honestly without supervision, you're better off in a formal environment. That's why I said the bit about having things spoonfed.
Still, you shouldn't overvalue formal education either. Having someone review your work is useful, but not mandatory. And if you really have questions, most fields of study have forums you can ask them in for free.
Which is exactly why I am declaring the War on Sharks. This world cannot tolerate one more senseless death to shark attack. We cannot sit back and wait for the sharks to attack us.
Don't forget the war on lightning. Lightning killed 3 times as many americans as international terrorism last year.
I would love to be artificial intelligence, for example. MIT would be a great place to study this... my school doesn't have anything decent for it. As I mentioned in another post, my AI class (the only one I could find that they offered) consisted of meaningless crap.
If you want to learn about anything, and you're smart enough to comprehend things without having them spoonfed, you're better off seeing what kind of books rank highest on that topic on amazon, and buying them. Get a good introductory AI book, then use the knowledge gleaned from that to decide which direction you want to go in. I picked up computational linguistics that way.
Schools are not meant to educate you, they are meant to give you credibility and reliability quality indicators in society, possible limited to certain knowledge sets (also known as degrees). The education is just a way for the school to keep up the reputation that the quality labels they stamp on you are sufficient.
Nvu is for those who explicitly don't want to edit the html source. You're just not the target market. I like it. If I need to do a serious webdesign jobs, I'll use a regular text editor, but for a quick and dirty webpage outlining something I need to have outlined, nvu is excellent.
How would you know why people love tabs for daily browsing if you haven't used it for such activities?
I used to have the exact same opinion about tabbed browsing as you. I didn't install the tabbed browsing extensions when they became available for mozilla (been using it as daily browser since M18) when they first came out, because I thought it was nifty but basically pointless. I was wrong. I know that now. Try it for a week, tune it to work the way you want it to. See if you still think it is pointless.
I can attest that I personally was in the never more than three windows open crowd before, but now I'm in the sometimes up to 20 tabs open crowd. It's so convenient to just see something on a site that interests you, middle-click it, and then when you're done reading the already opened sites see that site popup as a reminder you intended to read it.
I haven't noticed anything amiss with /. since the .9.x series. Presently surfing with 1.0 final and feeling no pain.
It is very timing sensitive. It depends on the combination of your computer hardware, your about:config settings, and your network connection's characteristics.
I guess you got lucky. I see it sporadically, maybe one in 30 slashdot pageloads, so I can just click reload when it happens and be done with it.
XUL only works in mozilla. HTML/Javascript will work in any browser (to varying degrees). As another poster said, lockin is bad, regardless of who it is you are being locked in to.
What lock-in? Mozilla is GPL'd, nobody can ever take it away from you. Whereas it is not possible to write javascript/dhtml apps on the level of complexity of what xul allows that work in more than one browser, and let's face it, the only reason not to use xul would be if that one browser was IE, thereby actually locking you in.
Microsoft may have won the browser war against netscape, but netscape lost it. Had netscape not put out such crappy products in the 4.x timeframe, they wouldn't have dropped below the 20 percent marketshare treshold, and people would have designed sites to work in both.
For microsoft to win the search engine war, google would have to lose it, and that's not very likely.
I believe this was done for consistency with microsoft's software in windows. The logical place is indeed under edit, but usability has little to do with logic. If most windows users expect it under tools, under tools it must go.
That debunking doesn't satisfy me. They claim that the states without electronic voting machines got more of a boost than the states with, which is true, but not necessarily relevant. The fraud would happen on the tally machines, which are used basically everywhere, even in states with paper ballot voting. Doing a recount of the paper ballots ofcourse would reveal errors in the tallies, but such a recount would have to happen first, and if it is completed after the inauguration, it would be purely academic.
Data is bullshit unless you know how to interpret it.
And facts can be ignored when they don't agree with your mindset.
Dude, I agree with you that abortion should be legal, but that is one hell of a contrived argument. It would be much more simple under that argument to make the rapist pay reparations, and/or adopt the child, than to terminate the pregnancy.
I noticed you didn't include Kennedy in your diatribe, although he to implemented the same policy. Which worked then, just as it work all the other times it has been implemented.
It's simple: cutting taxes always stimulates the economy, but some tax cuts stimulate more than others. It would have been a bigger boost to the economy to just hand out the entire tax cut in cash to random people in the street.
So, yes, trickle-down economics always "works" in the sense that it boosts the economy, but it is always a dumb thing to do because you're spending more on that boost than you need to. To boost the economy you need to boost spending, and the basic theory behind reaganomics is that by giving a tax cut to the rich they redistribute that extra income to their employees, who then spend it. Everyone knows if you give the rich a tax cut, they don't give it all away (they might give a percentage of it away), so it is much more effective to give the tax cut to the people who spend directly than conceiving of these kooky indirect schemes that have a large degree of waste of your tax cut's effects.
I supposed you are also against a flat tax rate as well. o just what in your opinion should the rate be on the top bracket? And just where should that top bracket start?
What should the top rate be? How much food should a person eat? It's the same thing. It depends on how much energy you're expending, as a government, or as a person. If you want to lower the tax rate, cut spending. Lowering the tax rate by going into a structural deficit is ALWAYS bad, economic theory is extremely clear on that, and only total whackjob economists try to argue with it. Ofcourse, the annoying thing (and the reason a lot of governments still do it), is that lowering the tax rate by going into a countercyclical deficit is good, and so sometimes you have to run up a deficit for the good of your economy.
A flat tax rate could work, but only if you tax all income under that rate. What the bush administration did with the tax cut (and the reason it is so skewed towards the rich), is tax income from capital (dividends, capital gains) a lot less than income from other sources, like labor, and then give the middle class a small tax cut for misdirection purposes. As a result, introducing a flat tax rate in personal income wouldn't affect a lot of the rich's income, with tax rates on capital still extremely low (below 15 percent), thereby reducing their total tax burden as a percentage of their total income to entirely regressive levels (as far as that isn't the case already). Unless you convince bush to somehow make the tax code tax all income sources equally, please don't campaign for a flat personal income tax rate, because it would make the tax system even more regressive.
I personally would get rid of brackets, I'd like to see a system that pools all the income together, and then applies a one-liner formula on it to calculate your tax rate. It would be much more simple, and a lot more fair.